WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

bill smith said:
Readers should ask themselves whether they would lprefer to have a sack of sand dropped on their head or whether it would be less painful to have the same sack of sand poured over their head.
Click to expand...

The crushed floors were not "poured" over the remaining structure, they crashed onto it in a matter of fractions of a second per floor. In your comparison, that would be sand this is not poured, but rather the content of one sack dropped onto you in one piece.

Remember: The "solid" structure was 95% air, the crushed structure was the same stuff, only very much compacted. Denser. Deadlier.

bill smith said:
This is an interesting comment Oystein,,

''No,They will have the exact same mass, velocity, energy and momentum, and will transfer exactly the same amount of momentum and energy.''

...The individual nails will..one by one..
Click to expand...

Except they don't impact you one by one. They impact you at a rate of 50 million pounds per second.

bill smith said:
I think I will rename you 'devious Oystein'.
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror, Bill ;)
 
Oystein said:
I like how the mass of the crunched floors disappears magically. Or is it gravity that stops working?
Click to expand...

Twoofers believe that using their terrible understanding of physics, that since rubblizing the floors would "perhaps" spread the impulse time - similar to dumping the water onto the car vs a slow dribble - that the floors would survive the impact.

This MIGHT be true at the initial moments of impact - say for about .05 seconds - but once enough mass accumulates, even as rubble, the floor's gonna fail.

It also kills me how twoofs use the 15 floors fall onto one floor, but each collision "uses up" momentum, which eventually stops the collapse progression..... while at the same time ignore the 12 feet between individual floors, which would allow gravity to re-accelerate the falling stuff and regain its momentum.....
 
Oystein said:
That was designed for the "solid box" before its destruction, and totally and easily overwhelmed once the supported masses did no longer attack columns head on, but floors etc.

Core columns were not 60% of the area. Not close.
Click to expand...

Aren't you going to tell the Readers how much floor area the core columns took up if it wasn't 60% or even close to it ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Aren't you going to tell the Readers how much floor area the core columns took up if it wasn't 60% or even close to it ?
Click to expand...

Why should I? It is very obvious that the columns take up only a tiny fraction of the floor area.
 
Oystein said:
Why should I? It is very obvious that the columns take up only a tiny fraction of the floor area.
Click to expand...

the Towers were 208 feet x 208 feet.

The 47 massive core columns were spaced over an area of 137 feet by 87 feet

you're the mathematician. Is that more than 60% or less than 60 % ? And how much more or less than 60% is it ?

PS:Just checked it out. You are correct. The core actually covered 27% of the floor area. By no means your ' tiny fraction' though.
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
No. The twin towers were not a block of wood. Think of it this way: Have you ever seen someone break a stack of boards? Ever notice how there is always a space between the boards? Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm...
 
bill smith said:
the Towers were 208 feet x 208 feet.

The 47 massive core columns were spaced over an area of 137 feet by 87 feet

you're the mathematician. Is that more than 60% or less than 60 % ? And how much more or less than 60% is it ?

PS:Just checked it out. You are correct. The core actually covered 27% of the floor area. By no means your ' tiny fraction' though.
Click to expand...

Oh. They were spaced over an area of 137x87 feet. That means, even between the core columns, most of the area was NOT core columns, right? ;)

But thanks for the PS. I'll mark the day in my calender as the first time I saw a truther self-correct himself.
 
Oystein said:
Oh. They were spaced over an area of 137x87 feet. That means, even between the core columns, most of the area was NOT core columns, right? ;)

But thanks for the PS. I'll mark the day in my calender as the first time I saw a truther self-correct himself.
Click to expand...

Even if each core column was 2ft x 4 ft - that would only be 376 sf. ft. :p Less than one percent of the floor area.
 
Last edited:
Animal said:
Little coherent force? Try dumping a truck load of gravel on a 1/4" sheet of plywood that is supported at its fours corners and see what happens.
Click to expand...


Yes, let's use more completely non-analogous examples in an effort to validate our baseless claims. :rolleyes:

I can't believe 9/11 bedunkers are still hacking at this bloody limb of a non-argument. That and Kader toy factory being called a "highrise". It's like a bad TV show with no one watching and a scratchy, looped laff track. Spooky and weird.
 
There's a case to be made that the Kader factory was legally a high-rise, which is largely irrelevant, as that goalpost only appeared after your request for a steel-framed building was met, and you're still hammering at the dead horse of a non-argument that unprecedented = impossible, along with the "global symmetrical freefall" collapses.

Say, you never answered whether it's possible to determine time of day from the sun's position.

Also, mass, even in the form of rubble, is still mass. I agree, it is a non-argument, but it's only being brought up because the Truthers seem to think that rubble is vastly different from the intact mass.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
No. They will have the exact same mass, velocity, energy and momentum, and will transfer exactly the same amount of momentum and energy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I agree with the "No." portion of your answer to what Bill wrote....I don't disagree with your comments about the mass, velocity, etc though...

Let me explain....

Here is what Bill wrote...
bill smith said:
I'm sure some people will find that very interesting. I like to keep it simple and clear. Loose rubble will behave much like a liquid. It will tend to run over and around obstacles in it's path.
Click to expand...

Okay that part is totally retarded and wrong....

bill smith said:
For instance if you drop a bag of nails onto something it has one effect but if you pour the loose nails onto the same object it does not apply anything like the same coherent force in falling, and will run over and around obstacles and spill off the edges where possible as we saw in the case of the Towers.
Click to expand...

The part about "running over and around" is not worth discussing because it's actually not relevant to the point Bill is attempting to make....but the idea that dropping a bag of nails onto something (say a thin piece of plastic) is a different situation than slowly pouring nails onto that same plastic is not completely incorrect.

If you "pour" the nails slowly enough....say one nail every 5 seconds....the effect will be different than if you dropped a bag of thousands of nails all at once.

If the object being hit has enough time to completely elasticly respond to each impact before the next impact...then it will survive the nails being "poured".

So while most of Bills comments here are very wrong and a bit bizarre.....there is something of truth to the general principle.

I think truthers intuitively understand that if you drop 100,000 pounds of sand on a car all at once that it will crush the car, but if you do it one grain of sand every second it will not crush the car.

I don't think they really understand the physics of what is going on though....so when they talk about it they say weird things like "loose rubble is like a liquid and will flow around stuff".
 
Last edited:
Tylervo said:
So why do people think that bad writing full of plodding language, labored non sequitor arguments, obfuscation, and strange archaic phrasing, is OK if it's "written for kids"?
Click to expand...

Who said it was? In this case "written for kids" means for people that "wouldn't know a technical argument if it bit them in the ass".
 
copy pasta

Tylervo said:
I've been meaning to mention that Heiwa's paper is no more "written for kids" than it is "written by a competent engineer." Writing for kids doesn't require the same level of training as structural engineering, but that doesn't mean that anyone can start doing it and expect to do an adequate job without some training, and/or lots of practice.

It's essential that the training and the practice includes plenty of honest feedback from actual kids.*

Evidently Heiwa lacks any such training or practice in the craft. There is nothing about the text that makes it accessible to kids, or that will make kids want to read it voluntarily on their own, or make educators want to assign it.

It's not OK for a chef to serve pancakes that are burned on the outside and runny in the middle, just because he's "cooking for kids." Everyone knows this, right? So why do people think that bad writing full of plodding language, labored non sequitor arguments, obfuscation, and strange archaic phrasing, is OK if it's "written for kids"?
Click to expand...


Why did you omit Myriads sig?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3627943&postcount=213
 
Try dumping a truck load of gravel on a 1/4" sheet of plywood that is supported at its fours corners and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Unless WTC 1, 2, and 7 were constructed with only perimeter columns, what's the point?
 
Animal said:
bill smith said:
The upper block was even more than 95% air considering that the dimensions of the steel were somewhat less less than in the lower section.Even the steel was a jumbled mass raining down and providing little coherent force.
Click to expand...


Little coherent force? Try dumping a truck load of gravel on a 1/4" sheet of plywood that is supported at its fours corners and see what happens.

Gravity - a matter of science in which troofers remain willfully ignorant. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

dommyboysinjapan said:
Try dumping a truck load of gravel on a 1/4" sheet of plywood that is supported at its fours corners and see what happens.
Click to expand...
Unless WTC 1, 2, and 7 were constructed with only perimeter columns, what's the point?
Click to expand...

The point was clear.

bill smith, she implies the mass of the WTC tower collapsing is, "a jumbled mass raining down" that can't do anything, can't exert force. No wonder a shot gun never exerts force; oops, bill smith is wrong! That was easy. 911 truth does not use physics or math to come with the many failed, delusional claims. bill smiths delusion on physics fits the thread, Heiwa's failed work, identified as delusional nonsense by structural engineers, when published in a real journal.

Another way.
Animal is saying if you drop "a jumbled mass raining down" of rocks/gravel on a piece of plywood supported on four corners it would fail even though it is "a jumbled mass raining down" on it. The WTC floors are supported only by perimeter columns if you understood the towers. You need to understand how the building was constructed, the analogy is a simple model. Guess what, 911 truth does not do well when models are used.

Do you need some more help?
 
Sorry guys & gals,

This is going to be a bit harsh. (I must be in a bad mood ...).

Smith ain't this stupid.
He doesn't believe the crap that he writes.
He doesn't believe in smoke generators, or skyscrapers built in the middle of cities with demolition charges pre-installed, or construction workers tearing out the external walls of a skyscraper to replace them with tin foil, or that a crushing skyscraper flows like water ...

This is the game that he plays. You've all seen it for almost 3 years now.

The game is "what is the absolutely most brain-dead, moronic statement that I can utter that will set the debunkers into a tizzy? Now, how can I make that extra stupid?"

He has played this game every day of his life for almost 5 years.

It is the unquestionable fact that monster columns were turned into pretzels, enormous slabs of granite turned to rubble, and a whole buildings contents turned to pieces no bigger than "a phone dial" that reduces his "rain of dust & pebbles" to brain-dead status.

For me (& others), it is the almost 3000 people brutally murdered that turns my stomach over this game.

I apologize in advance for the crude metaphor, but this really is the conversational equivalent to Smith taking a dump on the graves of all those victims.

You all know that he's going to do it. He does it with obnoxious regularity.

After all this time, thinking that there are any words that you could write that might change his behavior is utter folly.

And engaging him in debate over any of his chosen issues is the exact equivalent of the rest of you driving him to the graveyard & then being oh-so-shocked at his habitual behavior.

Time to look in the mirror & stop enabling Smith's bad habits.

JMO.


tk

PS. Told you I was in a bad mood…
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom